2012 (5) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... telligence information which it received that the vehicle was second hand and was registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in the United Kingdom prior to its importation. The benefit of the exemption notification was alleged to be wrongly claimed on that basis. A notice to show cause was issued to the Respondent on 21 December 2009 by the Additional Director General in the DRI. The Respondent made an application before the Settlement Commission on 18 August 2010, by which he accepted a further duty liability of Rs.61.32 lacs over and above the duty paid in the amount of Rs.72.61 lacs at the time of import. Interest thereon was also paid. Before the Settlement Commission, the contention of the jurisdictional commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, the Settlement Commission observed that unless the exemption notification were to be given a workable meaning so as to exclude registration for transit, the notification would become unworkable for import of motor vehicles from such countries where temporary registration is mandatory before exportation of the vehicle. Insofar as the facts are concerned, the Settlement Commission has noted that the car was imported by the U.K. dealer of Ferrari, Italy and sold to M/s. Hyperformance Cars Ltd., U.K. on 18 December 2007. The car was entered for export to India at the relevant port on 20 December 2007 and the consignment left for India on 30 December 2007 under a bill of lading. There is a finding of fact that the car was not used in the U.K. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h have been found by the Settlement Commission indicate that the car was in fact a new car which was transshipped from the manufacturer in Italy to the Ferrari dealer in the U.K. who sold the car to a dealer in the U.K. The Respondent purchased the car from the dealer in the U.K. The Settlement Commission has noted that the registration of the car in the U.K. was only to comply with the requirement of the licensing authorities in the U.K. who require registration even for the purposes of exportation. The car was not used in the U.K. The finding that the vehicle was a new motor vehicle is not perverse or contrary to the evidence. The Respondent made a fair and candid disclosure and accepted the undervaluation and paid the differential duty t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X